|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 09:26
|
||
To further clarify (lest Jon misunderstands) it's impossible to quantify CULTURAL value. Politicians wanting to suck up to interests which have other ambitions than culture apply monetary values to culture and compare it with the monetary value of speedier travel and conclude the latter is more beneficial. But the monetary value of culture, though real, is not the value of culture. Unless that reality is accepted this thread is kind of pointless!
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 09:48
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: To further clarify (lest Jon misunderstands) it's impossible to quantify CULTURAL value. Politicians wanting to suck up to interests which have other ambitions than culture apply monetary values to culture and compare it with the monetary value of speedier travel and conclude the latter is more beneficial. But the monetary value of culture, though real, is not the value of culture. Unless that reality is accepted this thread is kind of pointless! I agree with most of the above Nigel - except your final sentence. I started this thread to help in some small way in getting information about the Highways England consultation process on the short tunnel proposal. I readily admit to being just a 'punter' but have listened to all the arguments and strongly feel tunnel or dual carriageway both to be highly damaging to the Stonehenge environment. It was jonmor who came on and diverted (for want of a better word) the thread talking about quantifying the value of heritage. He seems like a reasonable sort of person and may genuinely want to use the monetary value of Stonehenge WHS as part of the argument in the consultation process - though in fact, only the NT and EH could possible do that by stating the net income they receive from the Stonehenge ticket office. But as they want the short tunnel that would be kind of pointless ...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 10:08
|
||
Sorry June, I didn't mean to close down your thread - which is, arguably, the most important of all for anyone who is into prehistoric sites, especially TMA readers. It's just that the assertions and hints by Jon that the value of the SH landscape can be "measured" somehow are a bit of a red herring. That's the bit of the thread I meant. Nothing wrong with threads going off the point but in this case it's not helpful.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Edited Feb 27, 2017, 12:02
Feb 27, 2017, 11:20
|
||
|
That William Turner of Oxford painting of 'Twilight at Stonehenge' is something I would definitely hang on the wall. Not sure if anyone has already uploaded this one... https://www.apollo-magazine.com/englands-heritage-bodies-supporting-stonehenge-bypass/
|
|||
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 17:32
|
||
|
moss wrote: That William Turner of Oxford painting of 'Twilight at Stonehenge' is something I would definitely hang on the wall. Not sure if anyone has already uploaded this one... https://www.apollo-magazine.com/englands-heritage-bodies-supporting-stonehenge-bypass/ Thanks Moss, no I hadn't read that before. I see Dan Hicks uses the term "Outstanding Universal Value" but doesn't try to quantify it in any way. He is helpfully clear in his explanation of English Heritage separating into Historic England and the English Heritage, the latter having charitable status. And hey ho! Highways England, a government owned company, set up more or less at the same time. What a coincidence. To quote: "Some things are plain to see. The Stonehenge Bypass plans put the World Heritage Site in danger. Any potential benefits to the National Trust Stonehenge Estate do not justify the damage to the rest of the WHS. It is impossible to ‘reinstate’ the route of the Avenue. And the negative impact of the current A303 comes not from the historic road, but from its 21st-century traffic." If there must be a new road, I think the suggestion to "loop the route of a new bypass wholly outside the boundaries of the WHS" is the way forward.
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 17:56
|
||
|
tjj wrote: [quote="nigelswift"]To further clarify (lest Jon misunderstands) it's impossible to quantify CULTURAL value..... It was jonmor who came on and diverted (for want of a better word) the thread talking about quantifying the value of heritage. . Apologies for diverting the thread ttj, I'll try to wrap it up: I've realised from reading the responses that our conversations are at cross-purposes. To my eyes, George and Nigel's responses did not appear to make any sense. But there is a circumstance where my comments do not make sense: If the consultation is primarily of an archaeological nature and concerns an archaeological scheme with some civil engineering as a side issue, then their comments perhaps make a lot of sense (I don't know much about archaeological works so perhaps my comments make no sense whatsoever) On the other hand, if the consultation is primarily a highways (government) run exercise concerning a civil engineering scheme which has some archaeological issues, then George and Nigel's comments are an interesting and innovative approach.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 18:06
|
||
|
tjj wrote: [quote="nigelswift"]only the NT and EH could possible do that by stating the net income they receive from the Stonehenge ticket office. But as they want the short tunnel that would be kind of pointless ... Definition of Value may not be important in archaeological enquiries, but they are relevant to government infrastructure schemes It's very easy to show income value: For that, the monument untouched has a value of perhaps some £100-200m. However, that value is very low: We are discussing partial destruction, so the value to be allowed to do that should be considerably higher. by using a comparative analysis, we could probably get £1bn to 2bn value. Of course, the sections being demolished are relatively small, so only a fraction of those costs could be allocated: Not enough to make a difference in this case. A third mechanism, which only applies in some circumstances, is to show that unforeseen (or foreseen) extreme loss might occur (this is the method that was used in the appendices to Stern). In those circumstances, it is sometimes possible to justify much higher values: A higher value increases the value of the loss and can therefore be used to put forward justification for a scheme to be modified. A second argument
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 19:00
|
||
|
Jon , if our responses did not make any sense why did you not highlight where that was the case ? As we have have done with your comments that didn't make any sense . e.g. "A question that archaeologists seem to me to be reluctant to tackle is why archaeological remains have value to humanity. " When asked top provide any examples you failed to do so , yet there are plenty of examples of archaeologists who have highlighted why archaeology provides value to humanity , an example was given where three were mentioned and plenty more where they come from . “Anything that has value can be quantified using the definitions and methods described in documents such as Stern. (Stern is very good at doing this and explaining how it is done) “ You linked to a paper that I read , and he didn't explain the method in the paper ,you then said the explanations were in appendices that you didn't link to ,or explain how he could manage something that no one else has managed previously . I doubt that he would make the same claim for himself that you did about him . “ I think that you are probably both correct that the mechanisms to give the archaeology of the Stonehenge WHS a higher valuation (that would be acceptable as evidence in a consultation) either do not exist or would not be accepted. “ You can't get a higher valuation from UNESCO , note that the documents related to the valuation do not include any examples of quantification of values in any of the criteria applicable to the WHS . The first criterion for Outstanding Universal Value is , 1)“ represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; “ Have you ever seen an example of human creative genius being quantified ? That is the crux of the problem with the belief that “Anything that has value can be quantified “ Neither Nigel's or my comments are interesting or innovative , they are simply how most people , including UNESCO , think about the values that are important to them as individuals and collectively .
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 19:14
|
||
I doubt that we'll ever find any common ground on this George. It's been a useful conversation. Thanks!
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Feb 27, 2017, 19:42
|
||
|
"It's very easy to show income value" On the contrary, it's horrendously difficult. What about the profit on the spoonful of sugar that goes into the cup of tea a Japanese tourists buys on the plane on his way to Stonehenge? No Jon, cost-benefit analyses have to be selective. So they reflect the selection process, nothing else. Certainly not the cultural value.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 20 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
